Blog on the Run: Reloaded

Monday, October 2, 2017 7:31 pm

An immodest but entirely justified proposal

If you think that 58 dead and 200+ wounded and 273 mass-shooting incidents in just three-quarters of a year are “the price we pay for freedom,” for God’s sake just kill yourself.


  1. […] SOURCE […]

    Pingback by An immodest but entirely justified proposal – Greensboro 101 — Monday, October 2, 2017 8:10 pm @ 8:10 pm

  2. So name me a locality with strict dun control laws that is safer tham ones without then

    Comment by Fred Gregory — Tuesday, October 3, 2017 2:04 am @ 2:04 am

    • You’re (probably intentionally) missing the whole point, Fred, which is that we need national laws, or else, for example, guns will always pour into strict Chicago from lax Indiana. It has worked in every other industrialized democracy, even those that tried it quite recently, such as Australia.

      Comment by Lex — Tuesday, October 3, 2017 7:21 am @ 7:21 am

  3. So what further federal gun laws would you propose ? Confiscation ? Crickets …..

    Comment by Fred Gregory — Wednesday, October 4, 2017 2:51 am @ 2:51 am

    • Mandatory buyback of certain weapons, magazines and accessories. It worked quite nicely in Australia.

      Comment by Lex — Wednesday, October 4, 2017 5:45 am @ 5:45 am

  4. Oh you mean gun confiscation. That, my friend ain’t gonna happen

    How about HRC’s stoopid suggestion on silencers. A .223 with suppressor still loud as hell with earmuffs on

    Or the idea to pass a law prohibiting modification of an AR-15 with a kit to change it from semi-auto to fully-auto .

    Do you think such a law would have deterred Stephen Paddock who was intent on dying .

    BTW, Norway has very strict gun laws but that didn’t prevent Anders Behring Breivik from killing 77 people with firearms

    Comment by Fred Gregory — Wednesday, October 4, 2017 6:52 pm @ 6:52 pm

    • Fred, two points: 1) It’s amazing how ineffective you think the measures would be in stopping mass killings when they’ve worked pretty much everywhere else they’ve been tried. No, they didn’t stop Brievik, but they appear to have stopped everybody else. 2) You give the impression of someone who really doesn’t give a damn whether we stop mass shootings or not. If I’m wrong, please explain why and tell me what your solutions are.

      Comment by Lex — Wednesday, October 4, 2017 7:29 pm @ 7:29 pm

  5. Ben Shapiro Decimates SJW Jimmy Kimmel for His ‘Abhorrent,’ ‘Nasty’ Gun Rant

    Comment by Fred Gregory — Wednesday, October 4, 2017 7:20 pm @ 7:20 pm

    • Please. The only people the Virgin Ben ever has devastated are his own parents — with disappointment.

      Comment by Lex — Wednesday, October 4, 2017 7:30 pm @ 7:30 pm

  6. Nothing Makes Liberals Angrier Than Us Normals Insisting On Our Rights

    Kurt Schlichter

    ” I, for one, am not super inclined to give up my ability to defend myself in response to demands by people who eagerly tell me they want me enslaved or dead. Literally dead.

    And this isn’t just about the ravings of a few unhinged loonies on social media (also, it ain’t “a few”). This verbal hyperbole is the leftist establishment’s MO. This is how they intend to strip us of our rights – via a constant campaign of hate that they hope somehow leads to us just giving them up. And it’s not just guns. Free speech? Oh, that’s racist, and it causes violence – by which they mean that leftists will attack you if you attempt to speak freely. Freely exercising your religion? Not if you violate leftist scripture – then you’re a bigot and your livelihood must be destroyed even though Sue and Shelly can wander two doors down and get someone else to decorate their nasty organic carrot wedding cake.

    And due process? Well, you must love rape if you think that a young man accused of it should be informed of the charges against him, allowed to cross-examine the witnesses, and have an impartial judge. Do you phallocentric male-identifying men and others have any idea how much harder it is to railroad some guy in the name of smashing the patriarchy when you actually have to prove your case with evidence? Like any woman would ever make up a rape allegation out of whole cloth! A fair trial? That’s something right out of The Handmaid’s Tale!

    And don’t get me started on the hate crime of hatred that is misgendering. Why, calling a man a “man” when xe got up this morning and decided xe was a non-binary, femme-leaning, twin-spirit otherkin is pretty much just what Hitler did.

    So, let’s continue our important conversation. How about this? How about we continue to speak freely, saying whatever we want however we want, and you leftists just sit there and be offended? How about we practice our faiths however we want, even if that means some of us don’t end up validating every one of your preferred personal peccadillos (I checked under all of the penumbras and emanations in the Constitution and I can’t find anywhere that you have a right to have us high-five everything you do). And how about we insist that everyone accused of something gets due process and the chance to defend himself – or herself, or even xirself?

    Yeah, we know that us having rights is inconvenient, but that’s too damn bad. Because we aren’t asking you for our rights. We’re telling you we aren’t giving them up.

    See, we’re done walking on eggshells and playing your verbal minefield game. You’ll call us “murderers,” “racists,” “sexists,” “homophobes” and every other kind of “phobe” you can invent no matter what we do anyway, and it’s all a lie. It’s also all meaningless. You don’t even believe it. It’s just a rhetorical weapon, and a lame one, but you’ve fired all your ammo. The chamber is empty. Keep pulling the trigger on your slanders, but we’re now woke to the scam and you’re just shooting blanks.

    Anyway, let’s continue our conversation. You’re not going to pin the rampage of some scumbag on millions and millions of people who didn’t do it. You’re not going to leverage this spree into disarming us – which is your ultimate goal. We know how you hate the idea that we are armed and independent, that we hold a lead veto over your fever dreams of tyrannical rule over us. You know how important it is to us to be free citizens; you yearn to humiliate us by stripping us of our self-respect by taking away our means of keeping ourselves free from the tyranny of people like you.

    You never cared that 59 people were murdered – some of you, as we have seen, cheered – and I gotta say, it’s a bad look to screech “I’m glad you crackers are dead, now heed my command to give up your guns!” If you really cared about 59 people being murdered, you’d demand that the Chicago PD flood the ghetto and stop and frisk until every punk with a gun was disarmed because 59 people get murdered there in a slow month. Oh, but wait – their rights! Gee, I thought that RIGHTS DON’T MATTER IF TAKING RIGHTS AWAY SAVES JUST ONE LIFE… I guess it’s really about whose rights, isn’t it?

    Let’s not even mention abortion. Jimmy Kimmel’s head might explode because he’s all about the kids not getting killed, except only after they’re born. He and you liberals seem cool with killing them before then.

    So, let’s finish our conversation about guns. Where was I? Oh yeah. No.

    No to your fake “solutions” that have nothing to do with this guy’s rampage.

    No to your bogus “care” and “concern” that arises only when it involves stripping normal Americans of our sacred natural rights.

    No to your has-been Democrat pols, your 23-year old Vox scribblers, and your hack Hollywood goofs thinking they get a say about our rights.

    They don’t.

    I guess that’s the end of our little conversation, because we’ve already heard every poisonous thing you leftists have to say, and I don’t have anything else to say except this. If you really want to disarm us, come on and try.”


    Comment by Fred Gregory — Thursday, October 5, 2017 7:01 pm @ 7:01 pm

    • As you well know, Fred, no one in a responsible position is suggesting the government “disarm” the populace. That’s a straw-man argument. Here’s what they ARE suggesting: Universal background checks. Computerized firearm records. Banning of any firearm or ammo that would be superior to that used by the average law-enforcement officer (i.e., no massive magazines, no armor-piercing bullets, etc.). Require gun owners to buy liability insurance. All of these are common-sense measures. The only reason we’re not talking about them is NRA money. And the NRA now is going against even its own rank and file. It used to be a sportsmen’s and safety organization; now it is just lobbyists for the gun industry.

      Comment by Lex — Thursday, October 5, 2017 7:14 pm @ 7:14 pm

  7. And, Fred, I’ll ask you again: Presuming you really are sorry that 58 innocent people (plus the shooter) were killed and more than 500 were wounded, numbers that would devastate an entire infantry battalion, please do tell me of what measures you would approve to try to prevent any such events in the future. Go on. I’m listening.

    Comment by Lex — Thursday, October 5, 2017 7:50 pm @ 7:50 pm

  8. I’ll ask you AGAIN what measures you would suggest other than your previous gun confiscation nutty idea ” MANDATORY buyback of certain weapons, magazines and accessories.” Join the NRA ,Lex, and be on the right side of this issue. Otherwise you are just blowing leftist talking points. You are smarter than that . I’ll pray for you.

    Oh here is a discussion on NPR:

    Comment by Fred Gregory — Thursday, October 5, 2017 11:11 pm @ 11:11 pm

    • Fred, you call mandatory buybacks (NOT confiscation) nutty in spite of the fact that it has worked in Australia. So apparently it’s not nutty. As for what else I’d suggest, I’ve already listed those. Join the NRA? Why, so the organization’s leadership can oppose the group’s rank and file even on something as simple as universal background checks? No, Fred, I’ve got enough leaders in my life who don’t listen to me already.

      And I ask again: What would YOU suggest as a way to prevent such events as Las Vegas? There will be other such events, so the question is not just an academic exercise.

      Comment by Lex — Friday, October 6, 2017 7:24 am @ 7:24 am

  9. Against the Misguided Moral Superiority of Gun Controllers

    In other words, conservatives offer prayers and policies. It’s just false to claim that “thoughts and prayers” conservatives throw up their arms and say that there’s nothing we can do. They offer multiple potential remedies, but without promising what no person can guarantee — that any set of public policies can stop every evil person hell-bent on mass murder. Let’s throw this challenge back to the Left. If you reject “thoughts and prayers” in favor of so-called common-sense gun control policies that wouldn’t stop either the Las Vegas shooting or any other mass shooting in the recent past, I’d ask that you’d do something actually constructive. Start praying. Because prayer helps. Your policies won’t.

    Comment by Fred Gregory — Saturday, October 7, 2017 2:03 am @ 2:03 am

    • Again, instead of answering my question, you throw up another hackneyed conservative op-ed. So I ask again: What would you suggest as a way to prevent such events as Las Vegas? What would you suggest as a way to get our gun death rate more into line with those of other industrialized democracies?

      (Also, this piece is full of straw men. Nobody is saying better gun control would stop “every evil person hell-bent on mass murder,” but it would make such events one HELL of a lot rarer. In point of fact, common-sense gun control policies WOULD have stopped the Las Vegas shooting, if not most other mass shootings in the recent past. And, contra the writer, “thoughts and prayers” demonstrably haven’t done a goddamn thing.)

      Comment by Lex — Saturday, October 7, 2017 8:37 am @ 8:37 am

  10. Why gun experts don’t support banning – or buying – ‘bump stocks’

    Comment by Fred Gregory — Tuesday, October 10, 2017 2:39 am @ 2:39 am

  11. Why Gun Control Cannot Work

    Of course they won’t work. Whenever anyone compares US violent crime (specifically homicide) rates with other countries they always say “Western nations” or “Developed Nations”, not realizing that such a limitation is a blatant admission that factors other than gun control are of far greater import to such rates. When asked why such a limitation, it’s said “to keep it an apples and oranges comparison”. So factors other than gun control are so much more important that they completely change the kind under discussion? Um. Um.

    Yeah, that’s what I thought.

    Or ask someone for a before/after comparison, to find an example of a place that

    Had a high violent crime rate
    Passed strict gun control
    Had violent crime rates subsequently precipitously drop
    And stay down, showing a lasting effect, rather than a short-term readjustment to a new circumstance.
    The closest anyone has come is Australia. An acquaintance of mine lives in Australia and he pointed it out. The total numbers of violent crimes actually went up in Australia, but because population also went up, the net rate (violent crimes per 100,000 population) declined slightly. However if you look at the trends over time, you see that the decline was simply the continuation of a trend that started well before the prohibition and confiscation of semi-automatic weapons. The ban had no effect on violent crime.

    Part of the problem of relying on gun control is non-compliance.

    Connecticut passed strict “assault weapon” registration in the wake of Sandy Hook. About 50,000 of the estimated 370,000 rifles covered by the legislation were registered by the deadline.
    More non-compliance with New York’s “SAFE” act. Only about 44,000 of the estimated 1 million covered weapons were registered.
    In Washington State, over 5000 gun owners gathered to engage in a massive civil disobedience event to basically swap guns back and forth in violation of Washington’s then new law requiring all transfers to undergo a Federal background check.
    Common joke among gun owners: Guns? I don’t have any. I lost them all in a tragic boating accident.
    Even beyond the non-compliance issue is that guns are simply too easy to smuggle, too easy to make. Australian police are reporting that about 10% of the guns they seize from criminals are homemade, including submachine guns. (Look, if you know anything about how guns work, you’d realize that an open bolt submachine gun is one of the easiest repeating arms to make.) Want to know how to make your own gun using commonly available materials? Check out any number of videos on Youtube or get the army training manual TM 31-210. It’s available online. I have it in PDF.

    Smuggling. Drug smugglers bring thousands of tons of drugs into the US every year. Now, if every one of the homicides committed with a firearm were done with a separate gun (I’ll deal with that here in a moment) and every one had to be smuggled in, that would only be about seven tons, trivial in comparison. And guns are wood, steel, and plastic, a lot easier to hide from sniffing dogs than complex chemicals with unique scents.

    And that assumption up above about every gun only being used once? That turns out not to be the case. Back in the late 80’s one of the news services, NBC, I believe, did a special on guns where they “traced” a single gun as it was trafficked across several states and dozens of crimes before eventually being confiscated by police. Their intent was to show how horrible even a single gun is. What they actually showed is how few guns are needed to actually provide for criminal “needs”.

    None of that even considers how you’re going to get rid of the existing more (some think a lot more) than three hundred million guns already in private hands in the US.

    The simple truth is, you can’t. Furthermore Americans, and particularly American gun owners, wont’s stand for it. See the non-compliance examples up above. While some might, a large fraction of gun owners simply will not give up their guns willingly. We’re not Great Britain. We’re not Australia. Neither of those countries have the history of resistance to government and passion for individual liberty that’s bred into Americans despite the efforts of some forces to stamp it out. Cultures, when placed under stress, tend to revert to their founding myths (see “Revitalization Movements” in cultural anthropology). Our founding myths include such things as “I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give my Liberty or give me death” and “Stand your ground. Don’t fire unless fired upon. But if they mean to have a war, let it begin here” (in response to an attempt by the government to confiscate arms, I might add).

    That leaves force, sending armed men (armed with guns) to collect up the guns. Only, you don’t know where they are. That’s one of the reason gun owners have been so resistant to anything like universal registration. And if you do, well:

    Gun owners in this country outnumber police by 100 to one.

    They outnumber the military by close to that.

    They outnumber military, reserves, and guard combined by about 30 to one.

    They outnumber the combined militaries and government paramilitary organizations of the entire world by more than 2 to one.

    Barring a “cultural change” that gets most of those people willingly giving up their guns, there is simply no way it can be done. None. And the tide turned on that cultural change in the late 80’s. More States are allowing more people to carry guns in more places than ever before. More people are carrying than ever before. The percentages of people carrying are higher than any time since the “wild west”. And along with that, violent crime rates have fallen, dramatically, from their high water mark in the early 90’s. While there have been a few, admittedly horrific, high-profile incidents, the simple truth is that the average American over the last few years has been safer from violent crime than most people’s living memory and hovering near 100 year lows.

    Gun control cannot work. Fortunately, it’s not necessary.


    “House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R) of Louisiana, who was seriously wounded after a gunman opened fire on GOP lawmakers during a baseball practice this summer, told Fox News that both his experience and the Las Vegas shooting has only “fortified” his opposition to gun control legislation.

    Like many Republicans, Congressman Scalise rejected discussions of new gun regulations “because first of all you’ve got to recognize that when there’s a tragedy like this, the first thing we should be thinking about is praying for the people who were injured and doing whatever we can to help them, to help law enforcement. We shouldn’t first be thinking of promoting our political agenda.”

    Valone, an airline pilot who hosts a radio show called “Guns, Politics and Freedom” in Wilmington, N.C., says the issue of rapid-fire automatic weapons has in some ways been settled.
    The first attempt to regulate automatic weapons came in response to the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre, a 1929 Chicago gangland killing where seven people were killed by four rivals, two of whom were using Thompson submachine guns.

    Instead of banning the weapons – which Congress did not feel it was enumerated to do – Washington taxed such weapons in 1934 to the tune of $200 and, four years later, instituted the first background checks for standard weapons.

    In 1986, Congress made it a crime to possess machine guns, with some exceptions. The US banned the purchase of semi-automatic assault-style rifles in 1994; that law sunsetted 10 years later. Today, the AR-15 – a classic assault-style rifle used by some mass killers – is referred to by many gun enthusiasts as “America’s rifle.”

    Comment by Fred Gregory — Tuesday, October 10, 2017 8:52 pm @ 8:52 pm

    • Fred, the point is that countries other than industrialized democracies are much more likely to have lax law enforcement generally. Yes, the U.S. might well be in the middle of the pack — such a comparison would make us look much better than we actually are.

      As for everything else, you’re in denial. We get universal background checks (including mental health), we get mandatory gun buybacks for the more dangerous models, we enforce it strictly and nationally, and we get a lot less gun crime, far fewer gun suicides, and a whole lot fewer dumbass “accidents.”

      Comment by Lex — Tuesday, October 10, 2017 9:27 pm @ 9:27 pm

  12. Feel Good Remedies Like Gun Control Won’t Stop Mass Shootings

    “There are about 300 million guns in this country—nearly one for every man, woman, and child. Congress can pass all the regulations it wants—and even declare an outright ban on guns. Anyone who wants a gun badly enough would still be able to get one. Substantially reducing America’s stockpile of guns might make it more difficult for a potential killer to get a firearm undetected, but accomplishing that won’t require a ban on guns, but a war on guns, whose constitutional implications are identical to those of the conservative war on terrorism. Indeed, it won’t just require liberals to end their “truce with the Second Amendment”—as The New Yorker’s Adam Gopnik wants—but also eviscerate other aspects of the Constitution.

    There is no good or easy way to get Americans to voluntarily surrender their guns. Asking them nicely won’t do the trick.

    Liberals like to tout Australia’s “buyback” programs as a possible model, but the success of that program in actually reducing the number of guns—and gun-related homicides—is deeply disputed. Indeed, one indication that the program wasn’t all that it is cracked up to be is that illegal gun ownership in Australia is up again, necessitating yet another amnesty initiative by the country this year.

    Besides, Australia’s love affair with guns is nowhere as strong as America’s—which is why Australia doesn’t have the Second Amendment to begin with and America does. That, combined with the greater number of guns in this country, might make any buyback program prohibitively expensive for taxpayers.

    So what is the alternative? Basically, forcing people to give up their guns. But the kind of intrusive searches of the homes and property of gun owners this would entail would make the Bush administration’s warrantless surveillance of telecommunications look positively restrained. Nor are Americans likely to simply lie down and take it. They will likely resist and fight back, which would require the government to crack down even more—or, in other words, declare war on its own people.

    No matter how much liberals want a gun-free paradise, they can’t simply wish away a deeply entrenched gun culture. If they truly want to reduce the number of firearms, they need to be prepared to get draconian.

    But would that even be worth it? I am highly skeptical that reducing the number of guns will actually result in fewer mass killings. Paddock took 59 lives—including his own. But look at the worst mass murders in modern American history: 9/11, in which thousands were killed by hijacked airplanes crashing into buildings; the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing that killed 168 people with a homemade bomb and a truck. Meanwhile, the Nice attacker in France managed to kill 87 people—and injure 434—by simply mowing them down with his truck.

    The grim lesson is this: There is nothing we can do to completely stop all killers at all times. The possibilities for mayhem are infinite. A society’s means to stop them are finite. Psychotics and terrorists will always find ways to exploit the cracks. No government can create an entirely foolproof system.

    So what can be done?

    Employ modest firearm restrictions that can be enforced, sure. But also, encourage private entities to step up their own lines of defense. It is really quite amazing that Paddock could sneak in so much weaponry—and install security cameras in his room to monitor police activity outside—completely undetected by the Mandalay Bay.

    As I have written previously, that kind of thing would never happen in my home country of India, where after the 2011 Mumbai attack, every hotel runs every car, every piece of luggage, and every handbag through a metal detector. Ditto for movie theaters and malls. Neighborhoods have installed their own private guards.

    One reason Indians are taking security into their own hands is that their government is so inept that Indians have no illusions that it will protect them. But even where the government is more functional, it can’t be omnipresent—and protect everyone from every single threat.

    The American Hotel & Lodging Association declared after the Las Vegas shooting that it will re-evaluate the industry’s security protocols. That’s good. Other industries should follow suit.

    The only way killers like Paddock—or Islamist terrorists, for that matter—have a prayer of being thwarted is if we fundamentally rethink our security strategy and build millions of points of resistance. Trying to go after their means (as liberals want to do) or targeting them by their motives (as conservatives want to do) won’t cut it, no matter how good that sounds in theory.”

    Comment by Fred Gregory — Friday, October 13, 2017 11:39 pm @ 11:39 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Blog at

%d bloggers like this: